#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: Bill Cosby Handed Bum Deal from Superior Court

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The primary reason that Cosby and his team cited to justify the appeal is that Judge Steven T. O’Neill allowed the testimony of prior bad acts – five other women who were not connected to this case but who claimed they were also drugged and assaulted by Cosby.

Published

3 years ago

January 3, 2020

Stacy M. Brown

Cosby maintains that he had never given women Quaaludes without their knowledge or consent. He said he obtained them because, in the 1970s, "it was the in thing." Both women and men wanted them, similar to the ecstasy craze of the 1980s and 1990s.

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

On December 10, the Pennsylvania Superior Court unanimously rejected Bill Cosby’s appeal.

The primary reason that Cosby and his team cited to justify the appeal is that Judge Steven T. O’Neill allowed the testimony of prior bad acts – five women who were not connected to this case Cosby was tried for but who claimed that they were also drugged and assaulted by Cosby.

According to several attorneys and legal experts interviewed by NNPA Newswire, that ruling and many of the other decisions made by O’Neill over the course of the trial, were questionable.

“With respect to prior bad acts evidence, such as these other accusers, trial courts often let this type of evidence in where the Commonwealth can show that the allegations were similar or somewhat similar to the allegations in the current case, and the appellate courts usually approve of this,” stated Zak Goldstein, a Philadelphia-based criminal appeals attorney with the firm, Goldstein Mehta LLC.

“It then becomes incredibly difficult to obtain a fair trial as this type of propensity evidence is overwhelmingly prejudicial,” Goldstein added.

For those that may be unaware, Cosby faced two trials.

The first trial resulted in a hung jury where 10 of the 12 jurors voted to acquit Cosby.

The second trial resulted in Cosby’s conviction and a three-to-10-year prison sentence.

The NNPA Newswire covered both trials and their aftermath.

Both trials hinged upon Cosby’s interaction with Andrea Constand, a former Temple University athlete and employee.

Cosby acknowledged giving Constand one-and-a-half tablets of Benadryl, which is less than the normally dispensed dosage.

Benadryl is an antihistamine used to relieve symptoms of allergy, hay fever, and the common cold. It is considered one of the oldest and most frequently used over-the-counter medications for children, and normally dispensed in 25 MG tablets at a dosage of one to two tablets every four-to-six hours.

Contrary to popular belief, Quaaludes were never administered to Constand.

Both Cosby and Constand agree that Constand was never coerced to accept the Benadryl tablets. She accepted them and consumed them of her own free will.

During Cosby’s initial trial, in 2017, Constand and Kelly Johnson, who worked for Cosby’s agent, the William Morris Agency, were allowed to testify.

Both women alleged that Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted them.

Johnson initially testified said the incident happened in the late 1980s. However, during her testimony she changed the date of the incident at least three times, citing a different year each time.

While O’Neill allowed prosecutors to call Johnson, whose case was arguably unrelated to Constand, to testify, he refused to allow Cosby’s lawyers to call Marguerite Jackson, a Temple University employee, who in a sworn affidavit, said Constand told her about Constand’s scheme to “get Cosby.”

Because of O’Neill’s refusal to allow testimony from Jackson, the defense did not call a single witness during the 2017 trial, which ended in a hung jury.

“It is not surprising to me that the first trial, where only one ‘prior bad act’ was allowed into evidence, resulted in a hung jury while the second trial, where more accusers were allowed to testify, resulted in a conviction,” Goldstein stated.

In the second trial in 2018, O’Neill shockingly reversed his decision from allowing one woman to testify against Cosby, to letting prosecutors call five other women who had decades-old, uncharged, and unproven claims against the actor.

One of the women, Janice Baker-Kinney, testified that she had taken a Quaalude BEFORE visiting Cosby. Later, she said she accepted another pill from Cosby while at his home in Tahoe, Nevada.

When asked on the witness stand why she took a Quaalude, Baker-Kinney gave perhaps the most damning response: “To get in the mood,” she stated.

Another woman, Chelan Lasha, gave her testimony while being coached from the audience by her attorney.

The Black Press observed attorney Gloria Allred appearing to motion for her client to cry while on the witness stand. Lasha sobbed throughout the entire, almost unintelligible testimony.

O’Neill refused to allow Cosby’s attorneys to question Lasha, or inform the jury, about her reported history of perjury and prostitution.

Another woman, former supermodel Janice Dickinson, testified that Cosby assaulted her in the 1980s.

Dickinson claimed that she was on a modeling shoot on an exotic island with her boyfriend when Cosby called her from Nevada.

She immediately left the boyfriend and flew to Nevada, where she had dinner with Cosby and a friend.

Dickinson said she went to Cosby’s room, and he drugged and assaulted her.

In her memoirs, however, Dickinson wrote an entirely different story.

She said, “Cosby was such a gentleman,” and noted that she had gotten high on her own. A photo displayed in court regarding the night in question was curious.

It showed Cosby in a robe and talking on the telephone, while Dickinson lies on a bed appearing alert and a willing participant in whatever was to take place.

The second trial also was a lesson on how not to select a jury.

When selected, Juror #11, quipped that Cosby was already guilty. However, O’Neill refused defense attorneys request to remove him.

Also, despite other jurors admitting to “personal relationships” with case detectives and prosecutors, O’Neill also refused defense motions to remove them.

One juror even admitted to being neighbors and friends with O’Neill’s court reporter, but the judge declined to remove that individual.

The judge also refused to rule on whether the statute of limitations had expired.

In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations on sexual assault is 12 years. For prosecutors to have brought a case against Cosby that dated back to 2004, it must have been done by December 31, 2016.

A day earlier, on December 30, 2016, prosecutors did charge Cosby.

Lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau laid out travel and telephone records that should have proved that the case against Cosby was filed after the statute of limitations had run.

O’Neill declined to rule on the statute of limitations, and decided to allow jurors to determine if they had indeed expired. Based on statements released by the jury, they never considered the law about the statute of limitations.

Prosecutors pinpointed the date of the Constand/Cosby incident to the second or third week in January 2004. However, evidence showed that Cosby wasn’t in Pennsylvania at all in January 2004.

The documents also showed Cosby wasn’t in the state in December 2003.

Perhaps the most credible witness called by either side was Cosby’s former personal chef, John-Conrad Ste. Marthe.

Earlier, Constand testified that the Ste. Marthe was at the house the night of the incident and left after preparing a meal, and he was still in Cosby’s employ.

Ste. Marthe remembered Constand but testified that he left his position in May of 2003 – a 2009 New York Times feature on the chef noted that he did leave Cosby’s employ in 2003.

O’Neill also limited testimony of a key defense witness who had sworn in a deposition that Constand and her mother were seeking money from Cosby.

Robert Russell, a former friend of Constand, said Constand was hooked on mushrooms and marijuana, and she came to America to try and become a millionaire.

Russell said he, Constand, and her mother, Gianna, were close friends in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

“The prosecution is trying to say that [Constand] is some innocent babe in the woods,” Mesereau said at the time. “They’ve painted the idea that’s she’s naïve, pure and holistic, and that she was naïve in accepting pills from Bill Cosby.”

Russell, who said Constand’s mother, Gianna, “hated blacks and gays,” said Constand wasn’t “this holistic person” she portrayed herself to be and that she had a plan to get $1 million from Cosby, who eventually paid Constand nearly $4 million to settle a civil claim she’d brought against him after prosecutors initially declined to prosecute Cosby.

That civil case involved Cosby providing a deposition that included his response to Constand’s lawyers questioning whether he had provided Quaaludes to women he dated decades earlier.

In the deposition, Cosby maintained that he had never given women Quaaludes without their knowledge or consent. He said he obtained them because, in the 1970s, “it was the in thing.” Both women and men wanted them, similar to the ecstasy craze of the 1980s and 1990s.

When asked if he gave them to women whom he wanted to have sex with, Cosby said he did.

While his statements to police and in his deposition remained consistent, Constand’s statements changed several times. So much so, that former District Attorney, Bruce Castor, advised her to seek civil remedies because he said: “she’s not credible.”

O’Neill refused to allow Castor to testify on behalf of the defense, in part, because of a longstanding feud between the judge and Castor.

Reportedly, O’Neill blamed Castor for outing an affair O’Neill had with a then-assistant district attorney in Castor’s office.

During the Cosby trial, O’Neill refused to recuse himself, and inexplicably gave an emotional and arguably inappropriate dissertation from the bench on how much he loves his wife and how she’s independent.

As jurors deliberated Cosby’s fate, O’Neill was seen and heard outside of the juror room, whistling the song from the hit movie, “Kill Bill.”

Shortly afterward, the jury reached its verdict to convict Cosby.

Up Next

A Tribute to a Living Legend: Civil Rights Icon John Lewis

Don't Miss

Remembering Oscar Grant 11-Years after Fatal Fruitvale BART Police Shooting

Stacy M. Brown

Click to comment

Pingback: Panafricanmedia Networks

#NNPA BlackPress

Conversation with Al McFarlane and Coach Leah

May 29, 2023 – Welcome back to another episode of The Conversation with Al McFarlane! We bring you inspiring discussions …
The post Conversation with Al McFarlane and Coach Leah first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

6 days ago

May 29, 2023

Oakland Post

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6ydjQ14cOJM&autoplay=0&cc_lang_pref=en&cc_load_policy=0&color=0&controls=1&fs=1&h1=en&loop=0&rel=0

May 29, 2023 – Welcome back to another episode of The Conversation with Al McFarlane! We bring you inspiring discussions …

The post Conversation with Al McFarlane and Coach Leah first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

#NNPA BlackPress

No Labels Endorses Bipartisan Deal to Resolve US Debt Ceiling Debate

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “We have always emphasized that there should be common sense bipartisan solutions to our nation’s problems that are supported overwhelmingly by the majority of the American people,” No Labels National Co-Chairs Joe Lieberman, Larry Hogan, and Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., said in a joint statement issued on Sunday, May 28.
The post No Labels Endorses Bipartisan Deal to Resolve US Debt Ceiling Debate first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

7 days ago

May 28, 2023

admin

By Stacy M. Brown
NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

No Labels, a growing national movement of what the organization calls “common sense Americans pushing leaders together to solve the country’s biggest problems,” announced its support of the bipartisan deal that President Joe Biden, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have agreed upon in principle to avoid the United States defaulting on its national debt before the June 5 deadline.

“We have always emphasized that there should be common sense bipartisan solutions to our nation’s problems that are supported overwhelmingly by the majority of the American people,” No Labels National Co-Chairs Joe Lieberman, Larry Hogan, and Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., said in a joint statement issued on Sunday, May 28.

Chavis also serves as president and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the trade association of the more than 230 African American owned newspapers and media companies in the United States.

After months of uncertainty and verbal sparring, an “agreement in principle” has been reached to spare the United States from its first-ever debt default.

But now comes the hard part: convincing both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to agree to pass the measure.

After President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that they’d reached an accord to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and avoid a catastrophic default, Congress has just a few days to approve the deal.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said a deal needs ratification by June 5, or the United States would breach its $31.4 trillion debt ceiling.

If approved by Congress, the deal would raise the debt ceiling for two years, punting it to the next administration.

The GOP originally proposed a one-year deal but conceded to Democrats’ demand for two.

In the agreement, spending – except for the military – would remain at 2023 levels for next year, with funds being earmarked for other federal programs.

Biden also agreed to a $10 billion cut to the $80 billion he had earmarked for the IRS to crack down on individuals cheating on their taxes.

Instead, the funds will go to other programs that Republicans sought to cut.

Additionally, with billions remaining from pandemic relief funds unspent, both parties agreed to claw back those funds to the federal government.

“Avoiding America’s default in paying our national debt is vital to the future of our nation. We thank President Biden and Speaker McCarthy for their leadership to achieve the debt ceiling deal,” the No Labels leaders continued.

“We encourage Republican, Democratic and Independent members of both chambers of the US Congress to pass this agreement expeditiously because it is so important for every American.”

The post No Labels Endorses Bipartisan Deal to Resolve US Debt Ceiling Debate first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

#NNPA BlackPress

Three Years After #DefundThePolice, Schools Are Bringing Cops Back to Campus

SAN DIEGO VOICE & VIEWPOINT — As of January 2023, there were about 60 SROs remaining in D.C. schools, down from its peak of more than 100, according to the Washington Post. However, the progress made toward reducing law enforcement presence in D.C. schools appears to be in jeopardy. In what seems like a backtrack from the progressive momentum generated during “America’s racial reckoning,” four D.C. council members now support a proposal to retain officers in schools, citing an uptick in violence and crime in school vicinities.
The post Three Years After #DefundThePolice, Schools Are Bringing Cops Back to Campus first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

1 week ago

May 25, 2023

Oakland Post

By Maya Pottiger, Word in Black

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, calls to defund the police rang across the nation during the summer of 2020. While few cities took swift action, many school districts — integral community hubs where young minds are nurtured, and where kids spend the bulk of their time — began to reevaluate the presence of armed personnel patrolling the hallways.

In September 2019, eight months before Floyd’s murder, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported nearly 25,000 school resource officers were assigned to primarily K-12 schools.

Those numbers slowly started to change in districts around the country as a response to calls to defund the police.

In Washington, D.C., for example, the D.C. Council unanimously voted in 2021 to reduce the number of SROs in both public and charter schools beginning July 2022, with the plan to end the Metropolitan Police Department’s School Safety Division in 2025.

In September 2019, eight months before Floyd’s murder, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported nearly 25,000 school resource officers were assigned to primarily K-12 schools.

As of January 2023, there were about 60 SROs remaining in D.C. schools, down from its peak of more than 100, according to the Washington Post. However, the progress made toward reducing law enforcement presence in D.C. schools appears to be in jeopardy. In what seems like a backtrack from the progressive momentum generated during “America’s racial reckoning,” four D.C. council members now support a proposal to retain officers in schools, citing an uptick in violence and crime in school vicinities.

On the other side of the country, the Denver Public School District Board of Education unanimously voted to bring SROs back to schools through June 2023. Similar to D.C., the decision followed closely on the heels of a shooting at Denver’s East High School. And 18 SROs were brought back to 17 schools in the district.

Schools around the country are running into roadblocks trying to remove SROs.

The Roadblocks

The roadblocks don’t look the same in every situation.

In D.C., for example, ACLU DC policy associate Ahoefa Ananouko cites Mayor Muriel Bowser as the biggest barrier. Bowser has been vocal about keeping SROs in schools, going as far as to say that removing SROs is “the nuttiest thing.”

And, like in D.C. and Denver, politicians, policymakers, and some educators nationwide cite violence in the area as a reason for keeping SROs, but there is little evidence to support that SROs actually do make schools safer. In fact, in a 2020 report, the Justice Policy Institute said, “rates of youth violence were plummeting independent of law enforcement interventions, and the impact of SROs on school shootings has been dubious at best.”

Plus, it’s been proven that SROs exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline, especially for Black students.

The Center for Public Integrity analyzed U.S. Department of Education data from all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico in 2021. The investigation found that school policing disproportionately affects students with disabilities and Black students. Nationwide, these two groups were referred to law enforcement at “nearly twice their share of the overall student population.”

What we often have seen is that the teachers or classified staff who feel that it’s not within their ability to handle certain situations automatically defer to the SROs.
ADONAI MACK, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AT CHILDREN NOW

But it doesn’t stop many adults on the school campus from differing discipline to SROs, says Adonai Mack, the senior director of education at Children Now. This happens when there is either a fear around addressing disciplinary problems or concerns, or feeling they aren’t able to handle it.

“What we often have seen is that the teachers or classified staff who feel that it’s not within their ability to handle certain situations automatically defer to the SROs,” Mack says.

This is where the call for additional non-police safety officials comes in, like nurses, counselors, or psychologists, who “certainly do more help than harm,” Mack says.

But, like teachers and other educators, there’s a shortage of these professionals. But Ananouko says this shouldn’t be a barrier if policymakers decided it was more important to have mental health professionals or restorative justice interventionalists — people who are trained to handle trauma, behavior, and underlying issues.

“I believe they could and should shift those resources to incentivize those professionals being hired instead of investing more in police,” Ananouko says, “which have been shown to be harmful to students in a school environment, generally.”

A Detriment to Mental Wellness

Though it’s too early to have concrete data on students’ mental health without SROs, there are, anecdotally, reasons to believe it’s a positive change.

Aside from students leading police-free school groups, there are other historic factors that lend insight. For one, whenever there are fears around deportation, not only Black students, but Latino and AAPI students experience negative mental health impacts, Mack says.

The feelings, like with the Defund the Police movement, are split across racial lines. Black, Latino, and AAPI students don’t always feel safe with police around.

“With kids of color, what you often have is this alienation,” Mack says. “There are decreased feelings of safety. Now, I would say that’s different for white kids and white families. They often will feel that having police on campus makes the campus safer.”

Black and Brown students are more likely to attend a school patrolled by an SRO.

And, Black and Brown students are more likely to attend a school patrolled by an SRO. A 2023 Urban Institute study found that schools where the student population is at least 80% Black and Brown, students are more likely to have an SRO compared to schools with a high population of white students, regardless of income levels. And, 34%-37% of schools with high populations of Black and Brown students have an SRO, compared to 5%-11% of predominantly white schools.

But it’s clear that there’s “a detriment to kids of color” with police on campus, Mack says.

“From that perspective, with any decrease, what we see is that it automatically improves the mental wellness of students from those communities,” Mack says.

‘A Critical Point’

While the roadblocks might be tougher or the headlines have fizzled out, Ananouko says the police-free schools movement “isn’t slowing down at all.”

And now, D.C. is at a critical point. It’s budget oversight season, meaning it’s the time when funding for SROs could be restored. But, every year since the initial 2021 vote, students, school administrators, teachers, and advocates have continued to push for the phase-out, Ananouko says.

“Our messaging has not changed,” Ananouko says. “We’ve stayed consistent in saying that police don’t keep students safe. And none of that has changed in these past three years.”

The bottom line is that all kids deserve to feel safe and nurtured, Ananouko says.

“They should be able to feel like they can go to school with that fear,” she says, whether this fear comes from other students or armed officers in the building who can use their gun “at any point at the discretion of the law is on their side.”

“A lot of the issues that students are dealing with are not going to be addressed by somebody with a gun.”

This article originally appeared in San Diego Voice and Viewpoint.

The post Three Years After #DefundThePolice, Schools Are Bringing Cops Back to Campus first appeared on BlackPressUSA.